• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

Thanks very much!

As I describe in the 3rd edition - Section 7.4.6 - I purchased a pair of nearly omnidirectional Mirage M1s for my large, somewhat live, classical "concert hall" - the largest I could afford at the time :) . They did well in small room double-blind tests at the NRCC, and in this situation they were to simulate an orchestra: wide dispersion, lots of reflections, etc. combined with neutral timbre and very uniform dispersion (anechoic and in room measurements are shown). They worked well and did not draw attention to themselves. (I also had a home theater).

Yes, I was also thinking about your experience with the Mirage speakers. I understood that you had pleasant experiences using those speakers in stereo, which is another reason I was curious if someone had ever done a full surround system with such speakers. And if so whether the benefits of the spaciousness found in two channel continued on multi channel, or if at some point the amount of reflected sound in the room becomes a detriment.

I was glad to see you speak to that point in terms of the nature of comb filtering in halls and in rooms, and our interpretation of such filtering as a sense of spaciousness! That suggests to me that it would be possible for a surround Omni system to sound quite pleasant.

Though you also cautioned later that given a certain amount of reflectivity too much Omni sound could be become cacophonous.
So I guess it’s a case by case scenario depending on rooms and set up, etc. (as I mentioned, I am able to control some level of reflectivity in my room).

In conventional stereo systems, multidirectional loudspeakers seem to benefit this kind of music, but also even pop recordings with hard-panned L and R images - monophonic sounds.

Indeed. I found all types of music on the omnis had an easy “ just appearing in space in front of me” quality. There seems something inherently, relaxing about it. Although some genres could sound a little bit more “ odd” because the presentation was a little bit different than the conventional speakers that I was used to (eg Rock/prog).

It is often considered more pleasing if the instrument or group of instruments does not localize to a single point in space.

I wonder if this is why I find mono recordings generally off-putting to listen to when sitting in the sweet spot of a stereo system.

I never think of "imaging" from surround loudspeakers, as only rarely and usually only momentarily are they required to deliver a hard-panned sound.

I see what you mean there. I don’t generally tend to associate imaging with surround speakers either.

However, it’s perhaps worth pointing out (for others) that surrounds can play their part in imaging. Certainly in Dolby Atmos, the various surround and height speakers are doing their role in providing object based sonic image location cues.

But even in regular channel based audio, the surrounds could still be contributing to imaging.

For instance in my work, when we are doing something like a helicopter takeoff on screen and then a flyover of the audience and away behind them, even in channel based mixes the sensation of the helicopter sound lifting
“ up” in front of you (higher than your LCR channels) is being helped by signals sent to the surround channels, as well of course during the panning flyover the audience.
So I guess that’s the sense in which one could talk about surround speakers doing imaging (and how they could also fail to image well).

You’ve actually brought up one of my pet peeves, which is when a mixer sends a sound hard panned to a surround channel. I don’t like that “ sound coming directly from that speaker” sensation. The sound becomes flattened. The better your surround system - as you say, the lack of resonances, continuity of timber, etc. - the less obvious this problem is. But here is where I suspect a fully Omni set up, properly deployed, could sound superior in floating the sound more free of speakers.

Thanks again for your reply.

(and the point you make about the adequacy of good 5.1 surround is also interesting).
 
Looking once more at the last graph - it also shows that it's easier to notice finer differences between relatively good loudspeakers as the number of channels increases. Or it doesn't show anything relevant at all - it's quite dependent to interpretation. :)
I just picked up on this. Obviously you are trying to understand this result, but you seem to have misunderstood them when you say "finer differences" are more readily observed in multichannel tests. The differences among the loudspeakers are the same in all tests, but in mono tests they are given quite different, statistically significant, ratings.

The reason why ratings spread further apart in the multichannel tests has to do with a peculiarity of subjective scaling. In fact, the multiple ratings overlapped each other and the averages did not exhibit statistically significant differences. When the range of sound qualities reduces listeners tend to use more of the rating scale. This is why it is necessary to "anchor" scales in some kinds of listening tests, by including truly bad and truly good sounds so that listeners maintain a kind of perspective. The following illustration from a discussion of subjective testing in the 4th edition simplifies the commonly observed situation. This is why multiple-loudspeaker comparisons are so meaningful if perspective is to be maintained.
1742856410264.png
 
However, it’s perhaps worth pointing out (for others) that surrounds can play their part in imaging. Certainly in Dolby Atmos, the various surround and height speakers are doing their role in providing object based sonic image location cues.
Hm-m-m. When objects are panned between enveloping/surrounding loudspeakers there is definite acoustical interference among the active loudspeakers. Since they are not likely to be in the same locations, or in the same number, in different Atmos systems the interference coloration will be different, but it is there. Hard panning to specific loudspeakers is recommended, especially for music. Synthesized sounds of alien creatures are different.

I will repeat my story about being at the Dolby Burbank "reference" facility being given a solo demonstration of Atmos when it was released. One of the demo tracks was a male voice panned around me. It took on quite different colorations as it moved to the side and rear, sounding truly offensive at times. When I mentioned it there was an awkward shuffling of feet before one of the Dolby officials said something like "most people don't notice it", focusing their attention on the location of the voice. When my colleagues were there the next day that demo was mysteriously "not available". 'nuff said.
 
Hm-m-m. When objects are panned between enveloping/surrounding loudspeakers there is definite acoustical interference among the active loudspeakers. Since they are not likely to be in the same locations, or in the same number, in different Atmos systems the interference coloration will be different, but it is there. Hard panning to specific loudspeakers is recommended, especially for music. Synthesized sounds of alien creatures are different.

I will repeat my story about being at the Dolby Burbank "reference" facility being given a solo demonstration of Atmos when it was released. One of the demo tracks was a male voice panned around me. It took on quite different colorations as it moved to the side and rear, sounding truly offensive at times. When I mentioned it there was an awkward shuffling of feet before one of the Dolby officials said something like "most people don't notice it", focusing their attention on the location of the voice. When my colleagues were there the next day that demo was mysteriously "not available". 'nuff said.

I vibe with that.

For me tonality/timbre is the first thing I notice and care about in a loudspeaker.
I know we are supposed to be less sensitive to speaker defects/characteristics the more speakers are added (e.g. in a multi channel system).

But I still find myself aware of the tone/timbre of loud speakers in many surround set ups, with just the type of issues that bothered you.
Frankly, if the timber isn’t right, mere spaciousness doesn’t do enough for me.
In fact, and trying a whole lot of different speakers for my surround system, I first started off, selecting loudspeakers based on their ability to project spaciousness alone.
But I was uncomfortable by the lack of timber matching. Once I selected speakers that matched timbre - even if they weren’t quite as spacious sounding - the sound was much more satisfying.

That’s one reason (aside from the extra hassle) why in my HT haven’t “just” thrown up some height channels just to get Dolby Atmos imaging/immersion. I’d want to be careful about my choice because right now I’m so happy with the tone/timbre of the surround combo I carefully selected.
 
Hm-m-m. When objects are panned between enveloping/surrounding loudspeakers there is definite acoustical interference among the active loudspeakers. Since they are not likely to be in the same locations, or in the same number, in different Atmos systems the interference coloration will be different, but it is there. Hard panning to specific loudspeakers is recommended, especially for music. Synthesized sounds of alien creatures are different.

I will repeat my story about being at the Dolby Burbank "reference" facility being given a solo demonstration of Atmos when it was released. One of the demo tracks was a male voice panned around me. It took on quite different colorations as it moved to the side and rear, sounding truly offensive at times. When I mentioned it there was an awkward shuffling of feet before one of the Dolby officials said something like "most people don't notice it", focusing their attention on the location of the voice. When my colleagues were there the next day that demo was mysteriously "not available". 'nuff said.
Would the colourations from panning between surround speakers not be similar in magnitude to the colourations of a phantom centre when listening in stereo? (Assuming that all speakers have matched direct sound frequency responses.)

And if they are, it would be a reminder of the importance of a centre front channel.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
I vibe with that.

For me tonality/timbre is the first thing I notice and care about in a loudspeaker.
I know we are supposed to be less sensitive to speaker defects/characteristics the more speakers are added (e.g. in a multi channel system).

But I still find myself aware of the tone/timbre of loud speakers in many surround set ups, with just the type of issues that bothered you.
Frankly, if the timber isn’t right, mere spaciousness doesn’t do enough for me.
In fact, and trying a whole lot of different speakers for my surround system, I first started off, selecting loudspeakers based on their ability to project spaciousness alone.
But I was uncomfortable by the lack of timber matching. Once I selected speakers that matched timbre - even if they weren’t quite as spacious sounding - the sound was much more satisfying.

That’s one reason (aside from the extra hassle) why in my HT haven’t “just” thrown up some height channels just to get Dolby Atmos imaging/immersion. I’d want to be careful about my choice because right now I’m so happy with the tone/timbre of the surround combo I carefully selected.
I'm setting up a new, downsized, home theater in our new fancy condo in Ottawa. With 10 inches of concrete separating me from my downstairs neighbors it is clear that cinema sound levels are not possible (ceiling is dropped and sound isolated). It is still evolving, but I may stop at 7.1 (with two vibration reduced subs now, possibly four). I don't watch superhero movies and the gratuitous violence in blockbusters has lost its charm, so I am finding that elevation is not missed. Good sound, good stories and good acting prevail, but harder to find. Getting old, I guess.
 
I find I can spend the day in the mixing theatre experiencing Dolby Atmos, come home and crank up my 7.0 channel based system and be quite happy and still blown away by the sound. Because of this, and the added expense and hassle of upgrading my AV receiver and adding more speakers, I haven’t been quick to make the move to Dolby Atmos at home.
 
Would the colourations from panning between surround speakers not be similar in magnitude to the colourations of a phantom centre when listening in stereo? (Assuming the all speakers have matched direct sound frequency responses.)

And if they are, it would be a reminder of the importance of a centre front channel.

Cheers
Yes, or worse because they do not have the benefit of symmetry. The problem with a center speaker is that its timbre is "perfect" but it doesn't match the compromised sound quality of all phantom (double-mono) images, especially the center. It is a great frustration for recording engineers - King, R., Theriault, M., Massenburg, G. (2023). “A Practical Approach to the Use of Center Channel in Immersive Music Production”, Audio Eng. Soc., 155th Convention, Paper 168.

It is particularly disgusting when the center channel is not used at all, as happens in lots of multichannel music and music videos, or it is sent to all three fronts. It is remarkable that we humans have so well adapted to the distorted sound of phantom images on the soundstage that a center channel is criticized for sounding different. It's an upside down world in some ways - all because of the default format: stereo.
 
Yes, or worse because they do not have the benefit of symmetry. The problem with a center speaker is that its timbre is "perfect" but it doesn't match the compromised sound quality of all phantom (double-mono) images, especially the center. It is a great frustration for recording engineers - King, R., Theriault, M., Massenburg, G. (2023). “A Practical Approach to the Use of Center Channel in Immersive Music Production”, Audio Eng. Soc., 155th Convention, Paper 168.

It is particularly disgusting when the center channel is not used at all, as happens in lots of multichannel music and music videos, or it is sent to all three fronts. It is remarkable that we humans have so well adapted to the distorted sound of phantom images on the soundstage that a center channel is criticized for sounding different. It's an upside down world in some ways - all because of the default format: stereo.
No problem, just apply a comb filter to the center. Have the AVR let you put in the distance between front right and left. Then all three front speakers will sound messed up equally. :)
 
:eek:
 
Some great content being discussed here but needs to be elevated to its own thread to ensure is shared more broadly. Am falling asleep so leaving this as note for @amirm to direct action as he sees fit.
 
No problem, just apply a comb filter to the center. Have the AVR let you put in the distance between front right and left. Then all three front speakers will sound messed up equally. :)
I send the center channel signal to front left and right speakers, and at greatly reduced level to a center channel-only speaker. In this way the center speaker is only adding some enhanced stability to the centered image in the mix, and the timbral differences among the three sources of sound are averaged out to a degree.
 
I just picked up on this. Obviously you are trying to understand this result, but you seem to have misunderstood them when you say "finer differences" are more readily observed in multichannel tests. The differences among the loudspeakers are the same in all tests, but in mono tests they are given quite different, statistically significant, ratings.

The reason why ratings spread further apart in the multichannel tests has to do with a peculiarity of subjective scaling. In fact, the multiple ratings overlapped each other and the averages did not exhibit statistically significant differences. When the range of sound qualities reduces listeners tend to use more of the rating scale. This is why it is necessary to "anchor" scales in some kinds of listening tests, by including truly bad and truly good sounds so that listeners maintain a kind of perspective. The following illustration from a discussion of subjective testing in the 4th edition simplifies the commonly observed situation. This is why multiple-loudspeaker comparisons are so meaningful if perspective is to be maintained.
View attachment 438778
It seems to me you are heavily trying to sell me new edition. And I bought just one edition of "Kind of Blue"...
Ps
I still think that graphs published in 3rd edition show that some loudspeaker (quad esl) sound better in stereo than mono.
 
Yes, or worse because they do not have the benefit of symmetry. The problem with a center speaker is that its timbre is "perfect" but it doesn't match the compromised sound quality of all phantom (double-mono) images, especially the center. It is a great frustration for recording engineers - King, R., Theriault, M., Massenburg, G. (2023). “A Practical Approach to the Use of Center Channel in Immersive Music Production”, Audio Eng. Soc., 155th Convention, Paper 168.

It is particularly disgusting when the center channel is not used at all, as happens in lots of multichannel music and music videos, or it is sent to all three fronts. It is remarkable that we humans have so well adapted to the distorted sound of phantom images on the soundstage that a center channel is criticized for sounding different. It's an upside down world in some ways - all because of the default format: stereo.
And we hate stereo!
 
I still think that graphs published in 3rd edition show that some loudspeaker (quad esl) sound better in stereo than mono.
No, all speakers sound better in stereo or we would all have single speaker systems. What kind of comment is that?

The research showed that if you don't eq speakers that need it, listeners are able to find its flaws very easily in mono. In stereo, they become less picky. And in multi-channel, they loose all ability to hear the problems. I suggest you read the paper,
Comparison of Loudspeaker-Room Equalization Preference for Multichannel, Stereo, and Mono Reproductions: Are Listeners More Discriminating in Mono?

This was the speaker in the test:

1742892841412.png


There are massive flaws in that speaker. Listeners became blind to some of it because of the spatial effects of stereo, not because adding a second speaker magically fixed those flaws. Ditto for multichannel where almost all flaws were ignored.

As the paper cautions, you can't assume that you always have stereo (or multichannel effects) to bail you out. Best to evaluation a speaker objectively and subjectively in mono to see how well it is designed. Sticking one's head in the sand with stereo doesn't do you any good and leads to buying worse speakers.
 
And we hate stereo!
Compared to multi-channel, sure. It sucks big time in creating a realistic or spatial presentation. Even a cheap multi-channel system with the right content can blow away just about any stereo system when it comes to presenting a realistic presentation. We put up with it because it is a royal pain for many to surround themselves with speakers. And pay for the same. Not because we discovered stereo to be great.
 
No, all speakers sound better in stereo or we would all have single speaker systems. What kind of comment is that?
I meant - some speakers are much better in stereo than the others - and AFAIK there is no way to tell how much better would speaker sound in stereo compared to mono unless you do a listening test.
 
Compared to multi-channel, sure. It sucks big time in creating a realistic or spatial presentation. Even a cheap multi-channel system with the right content can blow away just about any stereo system when it comes to presenting a realistic presentation. We put up with it because it is a royal pain for many to surround themselves with speakers. And pay for the same. Not because we discovered stereo to be great.
Too bad most of the music is in stereo. Life is like stereo - it sucks! :D
 
I meant - some speakers are much better in stereo than the others - and AFAIK there is no way to tell how much better would speaker sound in stereo compared to mono unless you do a listening test.
No. Some speakers are much better in mono (not stereo) than others. The same speakers are likely only perceived to be a little better in stereo. The research clearly shows that the differences between speakers will be less evident in stereo than in mono.

Another way of looking at it might be that flawed speakers benefit more from stereo, since well-designed speakers have less flaws which will benefit from being partially hidden through stereo reproduction.
 
Back
Top Bottom